The Objectors Daschle, Carter, and Clinton

There's certainly nothing wrong with debating the wisdom of war before making war. But too often, those current and former public officials who seek to influence the course of our foreign and military policy are not held to account for their public positions.

Indeed, many of the Democrats who oppose using military force against Iraq voted for a nuclear freeze at the very time Ronald Reagan was modernizing America's nuclear arsenal in Europe, opposed the Reagan military buildup (which was used to win the Cold War), voted against the 1991 Gulf War resolution, voted to slash the defense budget and undermine the CIA's espionage program during eight years of Clinton-Gore, opposed President George W. Bush withdrawing from the antiquated ABM treaty, and are today stalling a vote on the defense-appropriations bill despite the deployment and combat activity of our military forces in support of our war on terrorism.

Among Republicans, the loudest voices belong to former President George H. W. Bush's top advisers — Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and Lawrence Eagleburger. These men, like those who followed them during the Clinton administration, urge delaying war with Iraq until more time is lost building coalitions. Yet, these are the people who failed initially to enforce the terms of Saddam Hussein's surrender, which was the basis for our ending the Gulf War without destroying either him or his regime. (Of course, Clinton is even more culpable in this regard, since most of the violations occurred during his presidency. More on that later.)

Today is a good time to start taking down the words of some of the more prominent and outspoken people who, despite the extreme, clear and immediate danger posed by Saddam Hussein, either oppose outright preemptively attacking Iraq or argue for further delay. Since there's neither time nor space to address all of the opponents, I'll focus briefly on three top Democrats, who also happen to be among the most prominent objectors — Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, former President Jimmy Carter, and former President Bill Clinton.

Tom Daschle: After meeting with President Bush on September 4, here were the conditions Daschle set forth for supporting war:

"What new information exists? What threat can be quantified? What has changed in recent months or years? What will be the reaction of our allies? How much will it cost? If we change regimes, who will be in the new regime, and has that been thought through? Those and many other questions, I think, are ones that we have to explore very carefully. To my knowledge, at least as of this morning, the answers to those questions have not been made available to the members of Congress. What I hope will happen over the course of the next several weeks is that the president will be more forthcoming in terms of the information that he believes warrants U.S. intervention in Iraq. It would be very hard for us to come to any conclusion on a resolution until those questions and, as I said, many other questions are answered."

"Part of the new intelligence on Iraq gathered by the Bush administration to present to Congress include additional information on how dangerously close Saddam Hussein has come to developing a nuclear weapons ... Other sources [revealed that] there is new intelligence that Saddam has developed new means to deliver chemical and biological weapons and finally that there is intelligence information indicating that Saddam's regime has been in contact with al-Qaeda before and after the 9/11 terror attacks."

This information would certainly seem to satisfy Daschle's supposed concerns. Yet, according to Fox News, here was his reaction when presented yesterday with this information:

"I would think the United States would want to be in the same position it was at the point when we went to the U.N. in the early 90s [for the Persian Gulf War]. If the international community supports it, if we can get the information we've been seeking, then I think we can move to a resolution. But short of that, I think it would be difficult for us to move until that information is provided and some indication of the level of international support is also evident."

So, the evidence that Saddam Hussein is, in fact, close to developing nukes, that his ability to deliver chemical and biological weapons has become more sophisticated, and that he has ties to al Qaeda — which, under the September 14, 2001 joint congressional resolution authorizes the president to wage war against Iraq — is not compelling enough to Daschle to warrant the use of military force against Iraq. Now he insists that the administration not only seek international support and U.N. concurrence, but that such support actually be secured as a predicate to attacking Iraq.

Of course, back in 1991, the fact that the U.N. had passed a resolution supporting military action against Iraq, and that there was a broad coalition of countries lining up behind the U.S. wasn't enough to persuade Daschle to support a joint congressional resolution. Moreover, several countries that had been part of that coalition, including most of the handful of Arab nations that participated, have already announced their opposition to this war.

Oh, and one more thing: according to the New York Times, Daschle has scheduled several weeks of congressional hearings, which would likely delay consideration of a congressional resolution until after the November 5th congressional election. It was only a few days ago that the congressional leadership thought a vote on a resolution would occur prior to that date. Daschle's explanation for this new schedule: "I'm more concerned about getting this done right than getting it done quickly."

Daschle's conditions for supporting military force aren't conditions at all. He's simply opposed to defending the U.S. from the serious threat of Iraqi-related terrorism, even though Hussein has both the ability and motivation to arm al Qaeda terrorists to inflict horrific damage on our country. What else explains his increasingly obstructionist demands? Congress is in possession of more than enough information to justify this war. There's overwhelming evidence in the public record to support attacking Iraq. Moreover, the notion that the U.S. must secure the consent of other nations — indeed, approval from the U.N. and a broad spectrum of regimes (many of which do not share our values or geopolitical interests) — as a condition precedent to self-defense is ludicrous.

Daschle sits in George McGovern's Senate seat. He was a staffer to former South Dakota Senator James Abourezk, among the most left-wing senators to ever serve in that body. Clearly Daschle opposes war with Iraq, and he's playing a dangerous game of three-card monty with the administration.

Jimmy Carter: On September 5, 2002, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Jimmy Carter. Among other things, he wrote:

"We cannot ignore the development of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but a unilateral war with Iraq is not the answer. There is an urgent need for U.N. action to force unrestricted inspections in Iraq. But perhaps deliberately so, this has become less likely as we alienate our necessary allies. Apparently disagreeing with the president and secretary of state, in fact, the vice president has now discounted this goal as a desirable option. We have thrown down counterproductive gauntlets to the rest of the world, disavowing U.S. commitments to laboriously negotiated international accords. Peremptory rejections of nuclear arms agreements, the biological weapons convention, environmental protection, anti-torture proposals, and punishment of war criminals have sometimes been combined with economic threats against those who might disagree with us. These unilateral acts and assertions increasingly isolate the United States from the very nations needed to join in combating terrorism."

Remarkably, Carter seems more concerned about defending international organizations than his own country. But someone needs to ask the former president a few questions: How many precious days, weeks and even months should be spent cajoling reluctant foreign regimes in the face of Hussein's frenzied military buildup? And in the end, if the administration is unable to secure the kind of broad international support Carter demands, what then?

Moreover, Carter's policy prescription is a dangerous one, as demonstrated by his own failures as president. During his four years, the Soviet Union was on the march, including in Afghanistan. Carter's impotent response: the U.S. boycotted the Olympics and cut the sale of wheat to the Soviet Union. Communism was spreading in our own hemisphere, including in Nicaragua, which Carter did not view as a threat.

Carter's incompetence helped bring the current Iranian theocracy, arguably the worst terrorist regime, to power. For hundreds of days we and the rest of the world watched the spectacle of Americans held hostage and paraded before cameras as propaganda tools. Recent news reports continue to link Iran with numerous terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda. This was Carter's foreign-policy legacy. He's not a wise senior statesman, and he's in no position to lecture Bush.

Bill Clinton: On September 5, 2002, the Associated Press reported these words from Clinton at a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser in Orange County, California:

"Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on September 11. Osama bin Laden did, and as far as I know he's still alive." He added: "I also believe we might do more good for American security in the short run at far less cost by beefing up our efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere to flesh out the entire network."

Clinton stated further: "[Hussein] has maximum incentive not to use this [stockpiled chemical and biological weapons]. If we go, he has maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going to lose."

It's amazing that people are still willing to pay $1,000 a plate to listen to this man. Jimmy Carter looks like a successful foreign-policy president when compared to Bill Clinton. It's too bad Clinton wasn't concerned enough about bin Laden during the eight years of his presidency to use military force in a way intended seriously to eliminate him and his terrorist network.

At least as early as 1995, the Philippine government informed the Clinton administration that al Qaeda was plotting to hijack commercial U.S. airlines and fly them into U.S. buildings, including CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. In 1999, Clinton received an intelligence analysis repeating this possible scenario, but he ignored it. Last spring, when asked about this report while he was playing golf in Hawaii, Clinton answered, in part: Former President Clinton, golfing in Hawaii, played down the intelligence value of the 1999 report." That has nothing to do with intelligence," he said. "All that it [the report] says is they used public sources to speculate on what bin Laden might do." In other words, Clinton dismissed the report.

And that sums up the lack of seriousness with which Clinton viewed bin Laden. As early as 1993, when al Qaeda first bombed the World Trade Center, up until 2000, when al Qaeda killed 17 sailors on the USS Cole, Clinton refused to take effective military action against bin Laden. (Launching cruise missiles at an empty terrorist camp in Afghanistan does not amount to effective action.)

And we know that Clinton rejected numerous offers by the Sudanese government to help capture bin Laden. His own ambassador to the Sudan has corroborated this shocking fact.

Clinton's inaction in dealing with Hussein was no better. For eight years Clinton failed to enforce the terms of surrender that ended the Gulf War. Hussein became more and more brazen, including ordering the assassination of former President Bush. Clinton's response was to fire cruise missiles at Iraq — his weapon of choice — at largely empty office buildings during the night. Hussein's reaction was to expel all U.N. weapons inspectors, in direct violation of the terms of surrender. Clinton did nothing. Now, of course, Clinton's Democrat faithful in Congress (among others) demand to see more evidence of Iraq's nuclear program. That evidence certainly exists, but there would undoubtedly be more of it if the U.N. inspectors had been able to do their jobs.

Clinton argues further that, in essence, our military resources would be better used mopping up al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, rather than attacking Hussein who, after all, wasn't involved in 9/11. There was a time, before Clinton became commander-in-chief, when our military prepared for war on at least two major fronts. Assuming, for argument's sake, that we don't have adequate military resources or preparedness to wage war in Iraq, that's a damning indictment of Clinton's irresponsible military cuts.

Moreover, evidence is mounting that Hussein had some role in 9/11 and that he is actively harboring al Qaeda terrorists. More to the point, Hussein has both the ability and motive to arm these terrorists with chemical and biological weapons, which could kill far more Americans than the 3,000 who were murdered nearly one year ago.

Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein remain extremely dangerous enemies of the U.S. because of the failure or refusal of many of Bush's critics to take effective appropriate military action. This is a mistake Bush clearly is not willing to repeat. That's why he's a leader, which sets him apart from Daschle, Carter, and Clinton.

Clearly Daschle opposes war with Iraq, and he's playing a dangerous game of three-card monty with the administration.

Actutally I think Daschle does not oppose a war with Iraq so much as he opposes it before the election. His reasons are political, that is to say partisan. He knows that Dems will lose votes either way they vote in Iraq. If they vote yes they will alienate their base who make up the 30% or so of the public that is opposed. If they vote no they lose moderate Dems and independents. Stalling allows them to say play the concerned statesmen and placate the anti-war crowd, but still lets them climb on the bandwagon after the election. They do not want to repeat the mistake they made 10 years ago when they voted against Desert Storm, and their base will get over it by the time the '04 elections roll around.

Three stooges at it again? Anyone can see the democrazies ploy of an all-out offensive of "ATTACK Bush on everything and anything." The question remains, however, can the rest of the population see the trees regardless of the forest?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.